CompFox AI Summary
Elsie N. Majors and her husband, Parnick Y. Majors, sued Elizabeth Moneymaker for damages following an automobile accident. All parties were co-employees of the American National Insurance Company, and the incident occurred within the scope of their employment, bringing them under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law. Moneymaker filed a plea in abatement, arguing that the Workmen's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and she was not a 'third party' subject to a common law negligence suit. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the suits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a co-employee is not considered 'some person other than the employer' under Code Section 6865, thereby making the workers' compensation remedy exclusive and precluding a common law action against the co-employee. The court also discussed the implications for the insurance carrier's subrogation rights.
Majors v. Moneymaker is a workers' compensation case decided in Tennessee Supreme Court. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Tennessee Supreme Court.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Elsie N. Majors and her husband, Parnick Y. Majors, sued Elizabeth Moneymaker for damages following an automobile accident. All parties were co-employees of the American National Insurance Company, and the incident occurred within the scope of their employment, bringing them under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law. Moneymaker filed a plea in abatement, arguing that the Workmen's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and she was not a 'third party' subject to a common law negligence suit. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the suits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a co-employee is not considered 'some person other than the employer' under Code Section 6865, thereby making the workers' compensation remedy exclusive and precluding a common law action against the co-employee. The court also discussed the implications for the insurance carrier's subrogation rights.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.